Circumcision, Saturn, Kumarbi, Foreskins & the Human Gelding

Much like the frequent repetition of the number seven appearing in Biblical works and the appearance of “reapers”, most notably in Revelation 14[1], circumcision is a clear esoteric reference to the castration of the Aryan male as described in Saturn’s castration of Caelus (or Kumarbi’s castration of Anu). Let’s consider, for example, Christ’s circumcision. Here, as part of the ritual, oddly, two doves were sacrificed. [2]

The symbolism in Revelation 14 is just one of many instances in the Biblical Works where the Saturn Worship at the heart of all three Abrahamic faiths is laid bare. Here “one like the Son of Man” brings his Saturnine sickle or scythe.

In the ancient world, the dove was a symbol of the Aryan Venus and Ishtar. Indeed, elsewhere in the New Testament, particularly as appearing in baptismal symbolism, we see the appearance of doves as seeming references to Venus, “The Holy Spirit”, Psyche or Aryan womanhood more generally. In Christ’s baptism, a dove or “The Holy Spirit” descends suggestively onto Christ during the ritual as this study explicates. Baptism in the Jordan river itself is a reference to sexual intermixture particularly with Aryans as this study explicates.

The dove is a symbol of the Aryan Venus or Psyche (also a Goddess) and the “Holy Spirit.” Its appearance in the Baptism signifies a Jewish Christ joining with an Aryan woman. The sacrifice of Doves during Christ’s circumcision indicates the sacrifice also of this element.

Here we also understand that Venus was born from the castrated member of the Aryan Sky God Caelus. By Saturn’s castration of Caelus or by his theft of Caelus’ “daughter” or genes a racial cuckoldry is indicated. Thus Caelus’ penis and Venus become in some sense Symbolic Synonyms. Here, through the racial cuckoldry that castration or circumcision symbolizes, the Semite is severing or cutting the genetic line of the Aryan. Likewise, the dove, representing Venus, and the foreskin or Caelus’ penis also become Symbolic Synonyms.

The castration of the Aryan Caelus or Uranus by the Semitic Saturn. The circumcision is a reference to mythic motifs like this or vice versa.

Hence, the destruction of the doves, in Christ’s circumcision, comes to symbolize not merely the destruction of Aryan womanhood but Aryan potency, fertility and masculinity. We can be sure that the covenant of circumcision is a symbol of access to Aryan womanhood as well as the emasculation of Aryan men. We find this Hebrew word mahul, מָהוּל, meaning “circumcision” also means “mixed, diluted, adulterated, blended.”

Understanding the Jewish connection to a Semitic Saturn here, it seems possible, if not certain, the practice of Jewish circumcision finds or shares an origin with the Cult of the Semitic Cybele. In Judaism the actual castration that appears in the Cybele cult was modified into a more symbolic form.

In the cult of Cybele, Galli, Cybele’s male priests, are supposed to have castrated themselves in a ritual known as Dies sanguinis or “Day of Blood.” Again, we might understand the ritual as relating to Saturn’s castration of Caelus. There Saturn is ostensibly defending Terra, his mother. Indeed, Cybele, Terra and Rhea were regarded the same deity at least by the Romans via Interpretatio Romana. For these three deities they used the term Magna Mater.

An Arch-Gallus or eunuch priest of Cybele. In the cult of Cybele, Galli, Cybele’s male priests, are supposed to have castrated themselves in a ritual known as Dies sanguinis or “Day of Blood.”

Yet more broadly circumcision might be understood as symbolizing the castration of a slave and the creation of eunuch or “gelding”. With Abraham’s circumcision performed as a covenant to Yahweh, for example, we see an Aryan being made a gelding vis-à-vis a Jewish God as this study explicates. In fact, we might suspect the term Galli is related to the word Galilee as it appears in Biblical Works. This would be meaningful as Galilee might be understood as equivalent to the modern, jocular expression of “White-topia”.

Regardless, the venerated ideal of the transsexual promoted by a Jewish media today represents not merely the Galli of the Cybele cult or the feminized man but, more importantly, a castrated slave or gelding. Indeed, we might suspect the Wachowski “sisters”, who are knowledgeable Jewish Esotericists, “transitioned” precisely to present themselves as emasculated models and bellwethers for unconscious Aryans. If so, this demonstrates a profound devotion to a Jewish cause.

The Wachowski “sisters”, both “trans-women”, might best be understood as modern day Arch-Galli. Here there may even be a conscious desire to function as “bellwethers” for other acolytes or would-be “trans-people.”

All this causes us to wonder at the meaning of the ubiquitous practice of Jewish circumcision as it is practiced on the Jew himself. Indeed, it appears certainly a kind of self-emasculation is occurring here that is also a reference to the Semitic Saturn’s castration of the Aryan Caelus or Kumarbi’s castration of Anu.

On one level Jewish circumcision might be understood as a kind of voodoo ritual designed to summon or “cut loose” desired Aryan stocks. After all, here it is practiced on phalli within the orbit of Jewish control that are, counter intuitively, used to represent Aryan phalli. Though where host populations can be convinced to adopt the practice —as has occurred in the modern world among Anglo-sphere countries— it is practiced as well by a deceived or benighted host on actual Aryan phalli.

Genesis 34, where Canaanites are convinced by the Israelites to circumcise themselves are then slaughtered as they are recovering from the wounds, tells us plainly that the practice of circumcision is not brought to a population with beneficial intent. Hence, the JEM achieves greater power as a ritual castration or emasculation when it is exported to non-Jewish host populations.

The Canaanites are tricked into circumcising themselves, leaving them ripe for slaughter as they recover from their wounds. Here circumcision takes on a pejorative meaning.

This faked-castration, called circumcision, strikes one as a form of the familiar false humbling, self-curtailment and self-deprecation that so characterizes Jews. Vis-à-vis Aryans, this false humbling clearly serves, firstly, to lower the Aryan’s guard and secondly, to posit a humble, deracinated, emasculated “Christ-like” bellwether for them to follow. The notion here is akin to the false Jewish scapegoat of Christ or Adonis. Ostensibly, a Semitic figure is dying, being denied access to Aryan stocks. Esoterically, he is resurrected, triumphant, persisting through those very Aryan stocks.

Of course, beyond the symbolic, doubtlessly there is a very direct psychological effect intended through the physical practice of circumcision. Here a defenseless baby is suddenly wounded in an incredibly painful and yet sexual way. Here we understand the younger the human, the more formative the experience. There are two things to consider here. First, the practice is akin to castrating a gelding. Second, to traumatize the child. Thus, we assume it is intended with the purpose to enslave.

Here one hopes to breed passivity into an animal but especially toward the breeder or shepherd. Religiously we understand this as subservience to the Jewish God or Jewry. As a changed temper and behavior was observed in the eunuch over successive generations encouraging the practice of creating eunuchs to continue, doubtlessly a behavior was observed in the circumcised which likewise justified the continuation of this practice.

Did circumcision develop, as a modification, from the practice of castrating slaves?

In other words, circumcision bred the servility they had hoped it would when first they experimented with this cold practice. Importantly, of course, it allowed for geldings or psychic slaves that could also reproduce. Indeed, it is incorrect to believe circumcision arose from some primitive, unintelligent, superstitious belief however barbaric we regard it.

In the Orthodox case, where we see the Mohel sucking the blood from the circumcised child’s penis we may also see an effort to develop an ethnically cohering, “strategic bisexuality” in the child. Here the Rabbi seeks to take advantage of the “polymorphous perversity” of the child as Freud carefully and tendentiously described it.

This seems corroborated by the strange, sensual resurrection ritually performed by Elisha on the Shunammite child in Book 2 of Kings (4:33) where he repeatedly “[laid] on the boy, mouth to mouth, eye to eye, and hands to hands.” Prior to this the child had gone to visit the “reapers” in the field and suddenly his “head” hurt and he “died”. Doubtlessly this is a metaphor relating to circumcision as this study explicates.

The raising of the Shunammite child references both circumcision and a pederastic weaning of children.

Doubtlessly as well Elisha’s sensual interaction with the child, so that he is “resurrected,” points to a post-circumcision interaction akin in some ways to the sucking of the blood from the penis. Indeed, Elisha, along with Elijah and Jonah, are certainly pederastic figures formed from a Religious grooming practice as this study explicates. The operating theory appears to be, the younger the child, the more meaningful the experience and the more impressionable “the clay.” This understanding appears, for instance, in the word Golem which means both “formless” and “embryo” and describes a controllable creature.

Yet, the feminizing of the child, whether through the partial castration of circumcision or a pederastic ritual is also is a way of making the child “servile” to a male Jewish God. Incidentally, the sucking of blood from the child’s penis may be a reference to Kumarbi’s devouring of Anu’s penis or vice versa. There, symbolically, a Semitic God is “ingesting” or assimilating the desired genes of the Aryan.

Appearing more explicitly in the symbolism of circumcision, the sexually competitive Jew enters in among Aryans disguised as an innocuous eunuch of sorts, an androgyne or self-emasculating “religious man”. Ostensibly circumcision was developed for the opposite reason: to demarcate and separate Jews from others. So was the entirety of their religion. As discussed, in practice their Religion has operated through all periods of history, much differently. Indeed, Circumcision, as this study reveals, is itself a symbol of admixing with Aryans, it’s itself a symbol of “blood covenant.”

Strikingly, circumcision carries with it a sense of self-flagellation where “evil” sexual instinct and the organ of its origin is punished. It is a gesture not unlike, for instance, the depressed modern teenager, alienated or jilted by the “popular crowd” and implicitly access to their women, engages in self-laceration.

Particularly as circumcision operates as a reference toward Saturn’s castration of Caelus, one senses a deeply sublimated sense of guilt toward especially a kind of Semitic earth mother, like Terra, Cybele or the “unloved” Biblical Leah. Terra was the one whom Saturn was defending from the ostensible rape of the Aryan Caelus. Though, of course, the castration of Caelus also “liberated” the desirable Aryan love goddess Venus formed from Caelus’ genitals. Thus it is fraught with psychological neurosis and ambivalence.

There may be another layer to this metaphor that imagines the phallus as a serpent as certainly appears to be the insinuation both in Genesis and the Bacchus Cult. Here the shed foreskin of circumcision may also represent the shed serpent skin. In other words, we might deduce the serpent’s habit of shedding skins is understood in metaphor as the “changing of skins” or “identities.” To wit, it is a metaphor for Jewish or proto-Jewish crypsis.

Another possible layer to the symbolism of circumcision may imagine the foreskin as the shed skin of the serpent. Here it may be a reference to crypsis and reinvention.

In Darren Aronofsky’s 2014 film Noah, the skin of the serpent of the Garden of Eden, is passed down generationally as a sacred heirloom. He, and religious Jews that suggest Adam retained the serpent’s shed skin, may be suggesting it as a foreskin. On the other hand, this may function as a metaphor for the clear and repeated tendency of Aryans to adopt cultures, religions or art forms that Jews or proto-Jews develop. Adam, after all, is an Aryan figure.

Regardless, Jewish crypsis, as this study makes clear, has been an attribute as old as Jews themselves originating certainly before they called themselves Jews. Likewise, the JEM reveals it as a constant fixation. And to be sure, the Serpent is associated especially with deception throughout world mythology. Again, in the Garden of Eden, the word for serpent nakhash, נחש, is revealing. It means also “magic”, “sorcery”, “spell”, “enchantment” and “augury.”

Share this:

Like this:

Related

An interesting hypothesis. But perhaps the truth is more simple. According to history the jews were slaves in Egypt. The first great show of their revolutionary spirit you could say was in their liberation from Egypt. One of the commandments for observant jews is to tell the story of the exodus to their children on the first night of passover.

Quite likely they simply adopted the custom from the Egyptians. Judaism has incorporated many things from ancient egypt, sumer, and even Persian Zoroastrianism. It doesn’t always give the credit, but who does when telling a good story?

It was not a mark of shame or slavery among the Egyptians, more likely it was simply a national custom “Herodotus, writing in the 5th century BCE, wrote that the Egyptians “practice circumcision for the sake of cleanliness, considering it better to be cleanly than comely.”

Quite likely it being retained by the jews was the effect of Egyptian cultural imperialism that worked, long before jews had a concrete identity that they wanted to keep separate from the nations, it also served as a reminder of their exodus and history in Egypt.

Regarding the great aryan-semitic antithesis I see here and in other articles, it’s probably not all about the aryans. It could be, but I doubt it.

For most of the jews history, their chief enemies have been other semitic peoples. Indeed, their first temple (solomons temple) was destroyed by the semitic babylonian empire.

If there is a great antithesis it most likely came about as a result of the roman destruction of the second temple which was 70AD, well after the earliest events of the old testament and the formation of the jews as a distinct people.

Although earlier resentment could have been building under the Ptolemaic Kingdom and later the Seleucid Empire e.g maccabean revolt and hellenization, the jews benefitted greatly from hellenization and surely the destruction of their second temple would have inspired the harder of feelings between peoples.

The only Indo European people on the scene in that region of the world at the time (the formative biblical years for the jews) were the hittites, and we don’t have any record that says or even implies that the hittites and jews were ever on bad terms with each other, they were apart of the herem ban along with every other people in the conquering of canaan, but there is nothing to indicate a specific dislike or antithesis of any sort between jews and ‘aryan’ peoples who they probably had very little clue about at that point in history.

There is of course some uncertainty in saying that the biblical hittite was the same as the historical IE hittite, when there are some theories to say that the historical hittites were IE conquerors who adopted the name and customs of their subjects. Which would fit with what we know of the historical hittites who were renowned for their multiculturalism. The people of a thousand gods.

But just as much skepticism could be applied to the idea that jews are actual descendants of the israelites at all, no people are locked in time and impervious to change over centuries and millenium, but the modern jew is exceptionally distinct from the ancient israelites who he calls ancestors and forebears. Rabbinic and talmudic developments have drastically changed the culture and way of life of the jewish people.

A single but significant point could be on lineage. Matrilineal judaism as per rabbinic judaism flies directly in the face of the customs of the ancient israelites and what was promised to the seed of abraham, isaac, and jacob.

Which is not to give credence to any other israelism whether it be british, ethiopian or otherwise. But there is marked lack of cultural continuity amongst a people who claim direct and solid continuity.

This may be insignificant if it weren’t such a critical issue. Lineage and how you reckon/track it, determines who is and who is not a jew, if you’re getting that question wrong, and have been, consistently over centuries, you’ve counted a whole bunch of people as jews who are not really jews, and discounted a whole bunch of people who should have been accepted as jews.

Karaite jews are still patrilineal and are much more aware and concerned of cultural baggage displacing ancient custom and law than regular mainstream jews who have gone along for the ride offered by the rabbis and talmud

Regardless, if the biblical hittites were not IE then it only goes further to prove my point, which is that the early jews/israelites either had no interactions with the ancestors of Europeans/IE peoples or what little interaction they had was either neutral or positive.

If the biblical hittites WERE IE people then it’s worth investigating their interactions with the jews.

Abrahams family tomb was purchased from the hittite Ephron, who wanted to give it to him for free he was on such good terms with him.

King solomon at the very least was on trading terms with the hittites and would hire them as mercenaries.

Although they were declared one of the twelve nations of canaanites in the book of genesis, this was clearly innacurate if we are talking about the hittites of IE origin.

Uriah the hittite was a soldier in king davids army and hence not a mercenary. That this would even be allowed suggests some acceptance of other peoples in israel, and his description as a hittite is likely an ethnic description and not a religious one as he most likely would have religiously been jewish. (Early judaism was more open to conversion to judaism by foreign men than later and modern judaism, withstanding the betrayal of the men of shechem which was likely a gross overreaction and revenge to the bridal kidnapping of their sister, bridal kidnapping, which was quite likely a custom among the men of shechem (as it was among many people in the ancient world, and even in modern day kazakhstan))

The story of uriah the hittite does not end well, and would probably conform to your hypothesis, of a semite cucking an aryan, with king david impregnating uriahs wife wile uriah was away fighting his wars, david being unable to successfully deceive uriah essentially had him killed. But a balanced understanding would say that the jewish people of the time knew that this was a wicked act, and the prophet nathan rebuked king david for what he did.

Moving forward after the establishment of the israelite monarchy and the rule of king david and solomon until the destruction of the first kingdom by the babylonians, the first and only non jew messiah was Cyrus the great the founder of the first persian empire who would almost certainly have been of IE origin.

Although to what extent the persians, even ancient persians had continuity with their ancestors is highly debateable.

First thing: circumcision, which is a practice referenced continually in JEM (Jewish Esoteric Moralization) whether in the Biblical context or in the contemporary context, through Jewish art (cinema, literature, etc) is clearly a practice of deep symbolic import, this is simply undeniable. It is not something that was adopted haphazardly nor is something that is maintained mindlessly, dogmatically or perfunctorily. Jews, in fact, feature among them, highly conscious, intelligent and careful symbolists. If they saw no benefit in this practice, they would discard it immediately. Of this I have no doubt.

Circumcision is closely connected to blood symbolism and its significance. As establish in my study, it is related to blood admixture, particularly between Aryan and Semite. We see this referenced in Abraham’s covenant with the Jewish God (that requires circumcision) but this blood covenant is continued in the New Testament with Christ’s blood wine (falsely here a “new covenant”). This is true throughout. We find this reference to blood and a racial wounded or genetically accessible Aryan in the Garden of Eden Myth:

To the extent circumcision developed in Egypt prior to the appearance of Jews in history, it developed, I would argue, amid proto-Jews. Symbolically Herodotus remarks are actually apropos. Admixture, whether symbolized in baptism or circumcision, from the Jewish perspective, is an act of “cleansing” or becoming more Aryan and, in a sense, maintaining a particular Jewish blood alchemy as my study explores.

Jews, I argue, whether appearing in history as proto-Jews, before the name Jew emerged, are a people relatively unchanged, due to Religious developments focused particularly on this maintenance. Hence they have always existed “attached” among Aryans. My exploration of Jewish myth and myth more broadly reveals this (examples are too numerous to enumerate here but appear throughout my study, some now posted on this blog). Their vehement insistence to remain among Aryans is but one modern day clue that reveals this. In fact, as a potent and historically meaningful type, as they are, they are only viable among Aryans.

As it concerns whether this or that ancient Mesopotamian kingdom was “Aryan” or “Semitic” the conventional considerations are language and not race. Tolkien once took umbrage with the idea that Nazis considered his work “Aryan,” replying (paraphrasing), that the word Aryan describes a language group and not a racial group. Obviously the word has taken on a racial meaning and Tolkien was being coy but nevertheless an important point is made. What you are discussing above are language groups. My thoughts on the development of civilization and language is outlined here in response to similar questions:

I recognize that an orthodox understanding of these matters conforms more to ideas you’ve developed in your post above. Of course, as well, a stifling and all pervading political correctness in academia prevents the development of a much clearer understanding of these matters. Clearer understandings were being developed in the post war period.

To be clear, my thesis is not one arguing Aryan superiority per se. Jews or proto-Jews clearly have some important advantages that, I believe, nevertheless, can be mitigated or removed by Cultural, Religious and Artistic development among Aryans. But of course, such developments are how Jews gained their advantage in the first place.

Typically Aryans have appeared as founders of civilization and Jews and proto-Jews as closers. In the Greco-Roman world, I argue, they encountered Religious and Cultural counter movements that stymied their dominance for a period, prior to the development of Christianity. The Mesopotamian civilizations, though, were, indeed, dominated from Sumer by Jewish or proto-Jewish Gods. This is different than saying the race was, in the main, Semitic during its important periods.

Ideas I submit for your consideration. Again, thank you for your thoughtful commentary.

I was about 5 articles in before shooting off a lot of my questions, a lot of the articles I’ve now read answer them.

I think your analysis of circumcision as a blood covenant rather than spiritual covenant is quite correct especially considering the blood sucking practice, and the symbology inherent in the new covenant that retains the aspect of the power of blood, (want to be one with god?! drink his blood! eat your god! blood for the blood god!) which is some pretty primitive bushman religious thought in hindsight, and is despite christianity supposedly being a more spiritual and less worldly religion than judaism.

“Jews, I argue, whether appearing in history as proto-Jews, before the name Jew emerged, are a people relatively unchanged, due to Religious developments focused particularly on this maintenance.”

But why would you argue that? you would certainly be arguing alongside jews themselves that they are the descendants of the israelites, but based on what evidence?

The generations of noah or table of nations are clearly patrilineal. I obviously don’t take them to be accurate genealogy, but what’s important is a reference to how the israelites tracked descent,

“Numerous Israelite heroes and kings married foreign women; for example, Judah married a Canaanite, Joseph an Egyptian, Moses a Midianite and an Ethiopian, David a Philistine, and Solomon women of every description”

Aside from this, you have thousands of years of diaspora, with marked differences between ashkenazi and sephardic jews not just culturally but genetically, not to even mention karaites and samaritans.

I don’t find it impossible that there was ethnic tension with jews and other peoples from a very early point, in fact we know this to be the case with the egyptians and canaanites. It’s not impossible the jews represented ethnic conflict symbolically.

What I find more contentious is that Europeans, or their ancestors, were somehow in the situation (aryans) and it was actually mainly about jews versus aryans, that jews not only knew about aryan people at the earliest points in their history, but they had developed sophisticated strategies and symbology against them from as early as the book of genesis.

When there’s of course no evidence to suggest that they even had knowledge or reference of aryans as a people in their formative years as israelites.

In your ‘adam the aryan cuckold’ you do exactly this, you imply this antithesis in the very earliest part of the bible.

Yet some etymological connection of adam meaning red or fair skinned and blushing, is far from convincing to definitively conclude that he is entirely representative of a non jewish, and actually aryan type.

Many jews are also red haired and fair skinned.

Your analysis of subversive and esoteric themes in hollywood movies and comic books seems much closer to the mark than ideas of biblical adam being aryan.

It’s not impossible that such ideas developed over time in jewish oral tradition, but that such a world view was there from the beginning of the israelites seems to be a bit of a stretch.

I would agree from our perspective it is all rather remarkable. It’s remarkable the manner in which Jews encode messaging in cinema or comic books in such a careful and fastidious manner so as to moralizes Jews vis-a-vis sexual competitors. But that is what they, in fact, do, as my study reveals. Certainly we don’t suspect the religions they’ve developed and hold especially sacred to be less carefully developed and encoded.

One thing we should begin to understand about the Israelites of the Bible is that they are a largely parabolic formation, of course. At best we understand ancient Israel, the Israel of David, as described in the Hebrew Bible, as historical fiction. But here as well we find highly encoded parables that are referenced continually in contemporary Jewish Art particularly through the use of names.

What is revealed through my analysis, parts of which are published on this blog, parts of which are forthcoming, is that, for example, neither Abraham, Joseph, Adam, Benjamin or Rachel are understood as Jewish or Semitic figures. Rather these figures are references to archetypal Aryans in parables used to describe racial and sexual competition between Jews and Aryans.

This is well known in the cases of Japheth and Esau. The name Japheth, understood as the parabolic father of Europeans, means beauty and appears continually as a descriptor for women in the Hebrew Bible, from Sarah on down. Jacob’s wife Rachael is also described by this adjective.

Rachel’s name means “ewe” and she is the daughter of Laban, shepherd of a White flock, clearly understood as a metaphor for humans. Laban’s name also means “White.” Both Rachel and Laban are clearly references to Aryans vis-a-vis Jacob. But these are only a tiny few examples however important. Here we remember this is pure storytelling and parable creation, not the relating of actual events.

As I describe in this link I sent to you above, the civilizations in Mesopotamia, starting with Sumer, were Aryan in the origin. I maintain Religion developed in a sophisticated manner from proto-Jews with perhaps the most salient example appearing in the cult of Dumizid. I maintain Dumizid is a Semitic figure and his consort Nanna, an Aryan figure, much akin to Adonis and Venus appearing in the Greco-Roman world, as I explicate in this study. See the link below for more information on Dumizid:

Here the goal was very much the same as it is in much of Jewish art and cinema today, positing Jews as fertility Gods, mating song for Jewish men. Here Jews reveal they actually understand the purpose of Religion, Art and Propaganda, as mating song. This is also the secret to the long abidance of their culture and religion versus the ephemeral cultures of fallen Aryan civilizations. They understand the meaning of culture and religion so they work to maintain theirs. The reason Aryans evince no instinct to maintain their cultures, is because they have no understanding of the true meaning of these cultures.

What seems far fetched to me is the idea that Semites, as we understand them now, could have maintained and even expanded highly sophisticated, militarily powerful world civilizations in the ancient world without being in body, if not leadership, significantly Aryan. After all, what would account for their appalling inertness now? No one guesses, for instance, the race that inhabits Rome was the race that founded the Roman Empire.

Again my thinking on this point derives in part from Gobineau who maintained civilizations in their origin are Aryan. That the Greeks inaugurated Apollo, the fair Hyperborean invader from the North, “founder” and “ancestor” indicates they had a similar sense of civilization. How long these Mesopotamian civilizations maintained their Aryan character is anyone’s guess.

Nevertheless, clearly more vigorous races existed in Mesopotamia in the ancient world than exist there now. Were they Aryan? They were certainly much more Aryan than what exists their now. Yet again, their chieftain Gods were Semitic archetypes, much like Christ in Europe. As far as I can discern, Anu was the last Aryan chieftain God in Mesopotamia and he was likely invented by Religiously minded Semites to describe a supplanted Aryan elite.